You are here

ORFT vs Soundfield for orchestra recording

All about the tools and techniques involved in capturing sound, in the studio or on location.

Re: ORFT vs Soundfield for orchestra recording

Postby Mike Stranks » Sat Jul 13, 2019 9:03 am

Following on from CC's post....

To 'hobbyist': Whether it's your intention or not, your statements often come across as being sure you're absolutely right and that any other opinion is either wrong or from someone who doesn't know as much as you do.

It could well be a cultural thing... I've noticed that many people from the States are quite dogmatic in their statements. There are no shades of grey/gray - only blacks and whites.

This forum, for good or ill, is quite 'English'. Understatement, self-deprecation and irony are broad features here. But it is inhabited by people who are very experienced, very knowledgeable or both.

You are welcome here; all insights and perspectives are valuable. But your tone often jars - clearly not just to me. Soften it up a bit; be a bit less dogmatic and we'll all get along swimmingly! :thumbup:
Mike Stranks
Jedi Poster
Posts: 7332
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 1:00 am

Re: ORFT vs Soundfield for orchestra recording

Postby Hugh Robjohns » Sat Jul 13, 2019 11:51 am

hobbyist wrote:ORTF NOS DIN EBS RAI and all the rest ONLY work for ONE location and room size/shape as well as sound source and location of mikes.

Is this not the case for any and every mic array?

...depending on the size of the orchestra you may want to consider a wide spaced AB pair , perhaps with center fill ABC , AND a stereo pair. Optionally another mike for a soloist and possibly also for room ambience.

That's a comprehensive coverage... but 8 mics is quite a step up in budget and complexity from the simple scheme the OP was pursuing.

If you go with near coincident then optimise the spacing and angle for your room and size of the source sound and do not copy the webs numbers for ORTF or some other approach.

While I agree about not sticking dogmatically to a specific array configuration if it patently isn't working, there's nothing wrong in using a defined array format as a starting point -- and in fact I much prefer that approach to any other.

Starting with an ORTF array, as an example, means you know the acceptance angle is 90 degrees which then defines where the array has to be placed for a full stereo image. Once in place -- assuming it is safe and appropriate for the audience etc -- it is possible to listen and judge the balance of orchestra and acoustics. Only then can decisions be made as to whether the array needs to be closer or further away, and the mutual angle and spacing of mics adjusted accordingly to maintain the appropriate acceptance angle.

A very handy tool to help with configuring near-spaced arrays is the Neumann Recording Tools App: https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/neumann-recording-tools.

On the subject of mono compatibility, it's worth remembering that all FM radio receivers revert to summed mono whenever the received signal is weak or drops out. In the UK, the biggest selling DAB receiver has a mono speaker. And lots of people listen to music through the speaker(s) of their smart phones which are, in effect, mono... So while mono compatibility probably isn't quite as critical as it was thirty years ago, it's certainly not an irrelevance today.

H
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 27609
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Re: ORFT vs Soundfield for orchestra recording

Postby hobbyist » Sat Jul 13, 2019 6:19 pm

Hugh Robjohns wrote:
hobbyist wrote:ORTF NOS DIN EBS RAI and all the rest ONLY work for ONE location and room size/shape as well as sound source and location of mikes.

Is this not the case for any and every mic array?

Yes.
But you should be surprised at the number of people who look up how to mike stereo and then decide on ORTF or NOS and then exactly duplicate the spacing and angles not realising it only worked like that for one French setup and one Dutch one.

...depending on the size of the orchestra you may want to consider a wide spaced AB pair , perhaps with center fill ABC , AND a stereo pair. Optionally another mike for a soloist and possibly also for room ambience.

That's a comprehensive coverage... but 8 mics is quite a step up in budget and complexity from the simple scheme the OP was pursuing.


I said consider. Of course it depends on their budget and goals.
but renting mikes and trying things instead of buying the whole kit up front without any experience is often useful.

If you go with near coincident then optimise the spacing and angle for your room and size of the source sound and do not copy the webs numbers for ORTF or some other approach.[/quote]

While I agree about not sticking dogmatically to a specific array configuration if it patently isn't working, there's nothing wrong in using a defined array format as a starting point -- and in fact I much prefer that approach to any other.

Isnt it really whether you want near coincident or not? Then look at the configuration. Use Sengpiel or your references to guide setting up for the size and distance from the orchestra you will have.
[/quote]

Starting with an ORTF array, as an example, means you know the acceptance angle is 90 degrees which then defines where the array has to be placed for a full stereo image. Once in place -- assuming it is safe and appropriate for the audience etc -- it is possible to listen and judge the balance of orchestra and acoustics. Only then can decisions be made as to whether the array needs to be closer or further away, and the mutual angle and spacing of mics adjusted accordingly to maintain the appropriate acceptance angle.

Yes. For people who can hear those differences well. But still, looking at some reference material especially the diagrams to see what the actual resulting angles and spread yada yada are would be better than starting blind.

Tweak from something closer to what you want then to wildly hunt at random.

[/quote]

A very handy tool to help with configuring near-spaced arrays is the Neumann Recording Tools App: https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/neumann-recording-tools.



Thanks. I will check those out next and add them to my collection.
[/quote]
On the subject of mono compatibility, it's worth remembering that all FM radio receivers revert to summed mono whenever the received signal is weak or drops out. In the UK, the biggest selling DAB receiver has a mono speaker. And lots of people listen to music through the speaker(s) of their smart phones which are, in effect, mono... So while mono compatibility probably isn't quite as critical as it was thirty years ago, it's certainly not an irrelevance today.

H

I thought I mentioned that they should consider whether mono compatibility or not would be useful or needed. But good to reiterate that.
hobbyist
Regular
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:52 am

Re: ORFT vs Soundfield for orchestra recording

Postby hobbyist » Sat Jul 13, 2019 6:29 pm

Mike Stranks wrote:Following on from CC's post....

To 'hobbyist': Whether it's your intention or not, your statements often come across as being sure you're absolutely right and that any other opinion is either wrong or from someone who doesn't know as much as you do.

It could well be a cultural thing... I've noticed that many people from the States are quite dogmatic in their statements. There are no shades of grey/gray - only blacks and whites.

This forum, for good or ill, is quite 'English'. Understatement, self-deprecation and irony are broad features here. But it is inhabited by people who are very experienced, very knowledgeable or both.

You are welcome here; all insights and perspectives are valuable. But your tone often jars - clearly not just to me. Soften it up a bit; be a bit less dogmatic and we'll all get along swimmingly! :thumbup:


It may well be a cultural difference between UK and US. And it may be increased because I do have a degree in engineering, 5 years of grad school in math, and a PhD in computer science. Plus a long career of having worked in systems engineering.

And when I understand the why of something it is easier to say in such a manner, when others say to do something when all they know is what they were told or read, and are at risk of making a mistake with a decision, if not already incorrec.t

To me Facts + Logic = Truth. So if I sound like I am absolutely right it is because I think that I am correct based on the truth.

If someone can counter my statements with something other than ad hominems I would listen carefully.
hobbyist
Regular
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:52 am

Re: ORFT vs Soundfield for orchestra recording

Postby ConcertinaChap » Sat Jul 13, 2019 6:39 pm

OK, a couple of things:

1) When you state that which is in your opinion the truth you should back those statements up with evidence, especially if they are in some way contentious.

2) When you list your intellectual achievements I'm looking for anything relating to audio and not seeing it. What background do you have there? Speaking as someone who has also spent most of my working life in software development and systems administration I have never found that much of a match.

3) To quote Oliver Cromwell, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken".

CC
User avatar
ConcertinaChap
Jedi Poster
Posts: 8813
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 12:00 am
Location: Bradford on Avon
Making music: Eagle Alley, recording music: Mr Punch's Studio
We are normal and we want our freedom!.

Re: ORFT vs Soundfield for orchestra recording

Postby Eddy Deegan » Sat Jul 13, 2019 6:40 pm

hobbyist wrote:To me Facts + Logic = Truth. So if I sound like I am absolutely right it is because I think that I am correct based on the truth.

With apologies to the mods.

Some of the 'logic' you have expressed in various posts is abysmal and demonstrates little understanding of the subject. Additionally you have avoided or otherwise shrugged off requests to cite your sources while simultaneously demanding other people provide references for theirs.

Also, anyone claming "I'm smart therefore I can be rude" (using words to that effect) is merely saying "I am rude". Nobody cares how smart you are or aren't. There are some extremely well qualified people in these forums and they tend to be some of the most helpful, polite and modest folks around.

Plenty of people, I should know I'm one of them, put their foot in their mouth on occasion or get a little off-topic now and again but common courtesy and a modicum of sensibility is worth a great deal.

Being right is great, being wrong is fine if trying to help and most of us (you included) fall somewhere in between. Being abrasive is another matter however.
User avatar
Eddy Deegan
Moderator
Posts: 4353
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 12:00 am
Location: Brighton & Hove, UK
Some of my works.
Please consider supporting the SOS Forum Album project.
 

Re: ORFT vs Soundfield for orchestra recording

Postby Aural Reject » Sat Jul 13, 2019 7:04 pm

Perhaps it’s time to reinstate Forumuser840717’s original reply :headbang:
User avatar
Aural Reject
Frequent Poster
Posts: 953
Joined: Fri May 02, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Lancashire born, living in Yorkshire :s

Re: ORFT vs Soundfield for orchestra recording

Postby hobbyist » Sat Jul 13, 2019 7:35 pm

Eddy Deegan wrote:
hobbyist wrote:To me Facts + Logic = Truth. So if I sound like I am absolutely right it is because I think that I am correct based on the truth.

With apologies to the mods.

Some of the 'logic' you have expressed in various posts is abysmal and demonstrates little understanding of the subject. Additionally you have avoided or otherwise shrugged off requests to cite your sources while simultaneously demanding other people provide references for theirs.

Also, anyone claming "I'm smart therefore I can be rude" (using words to that effect) is merely saying "I am rude". Nobody cares how smart you are or aren't. There are some extremely well qualified people in these forums and they tend to be some of the most helpful, polite and modest folks around.

Plenty of people, I should know I'm one of them, put their foot in their mouth on occasion or get a little off-topic now and again but common courtesy and a modicum of sensibility is worth a great deal.

Being right is great, being wrong is fine if trying to help and most of us (you included) fall somewhere in between. Being abrasive is another matter however.

Maybe it is your logic that is erroneous.

All I see are ad hominems.
Try stating provable facts instead if you disagree with me.
Show me real logic not some fascist progressive democrats PC personal attacks type of political approach at winning an argument. [not that you personally have - but an example of the crap we run into in the states all the time that replaces true discussion and debate.]

I am not trying to be rude although when I get dissed I tend to reply less courteously. I admit there may be a cultural difference between us in the colonies and those on the continent.

I am not obligated to city my resources nor to prove myself to you.
If you disagree then you should research the topic yourself.
I tell you what is true and there my obligation ends.

I have always tried to help. Show me a post that was otherwise.
If I am unsure I will qualify my statements as an alert to check more carefully.
hobbyist
Regular
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:52 am

Re: ORFT vs Soundfield for orchestra recording

Postby hobbyist » Sat Jul 13, 2019 7:36 pm

Aural Reject wrote:Perhaps it’s time to reinstate Forumuser840717’s original reply :headbang:

Please do.
I would enjoy a good laugh before I shred it for being wrong.
hobbyist
Regular
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:52 am

Re: ORFT vs Soundfield for orchestra recording

Postby James Perrett » Sat Jul 13, 2019 7:56 pm

hobbyist wrote:
Aural Reject wrote:Perhaps it’s time to reinstate Forumuser840717’s original reply :headbang:

Please do.
I would enjoy a good laugh before I shred it for being wrong.

Forumuser840717's opinion is backed up by a large body of recording work at the highest level. He is a very experienced professional classical recording engineer. Can you point to your recording portfolio? You do your credibility no favours by dismissing his opinion.
User avatar
James Perrett
Moderator
Posts: 9360
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:00 am
Location: The wilds of Hampshire
JRP Music - Audio Mastering and Restoration. JRP Music Facebook Page

Re: ORFT vs Soundfield for orchestra recording

Postby Hugh Robjohns » Sat Jul 13, 2019 8:37 pm

Clearly this discourse is not going well, and I fear it will only get worse. It's extremely rare that so many established and valued forum users take umbridge so dramatically with a new member.

So, for the sake of peace and harmony, I have activated a cooling off period in the form of a 7-day ban on Hobbiest. Hopefully that will allow time to become more familiar with the polite and respectful manner in which discussions are held here, and to reflect on how best to contribute in the future.
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 27609
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Re: ORFT vs Soundfield for orchestra recording

Postby Bob Bickerton » Sat Jul 13, 2019 9:32 pm

Appreciated.

Bob
User avatar
Bob Bickerton
Jedi Poster
Posts: 4088
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
http://www.bickerton.co.nz

Re: ORFT vs Soundfield for orchestra recording

Postby cyrano.mac » Sat Jul 13, 2019 10:55 pm

Wot? No Decca tree? :mrgreen:

Sorry, tried this a while ago. Turned into a disaster cause I had no time to test mic position and the performance was moved to a smaller room. Fortunately, I had another setup further back. That one picked up too much audience though. Ah well, it was an experiment anyways.

Does anyone still use Decca tree these days?
cyrano.mac
Regular
Posts: 124
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2019 5:00 pm

Re: ORFT vs Soundfield for orchestra recording

Postby Hugh Robjohns » Sat Jul 13, 2019 11:18 pm

cyrano.mac wrote:Does anyone still use Decca tree these days?

Yes. Very commonly employed in orchestral recordings.
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 27609
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Re: ORFT vs Soundfield for orchestra recording

Postby Eddy Deegan » Sun Jul 14, 2019 12:31 am

Bob Bickerton wrote:Appreciated.

Here too.

For the benefit of any cousins west of the UK, I'd like to stress that some of the most decent, polite and downright good-to-know friends I have live in the US. As is the case with Hugh and others, I've spent a lot of time in the States over the years, have never felt anything but welcome and am looking forward to the next opportunity I get (it will come) to visit again.

To Hobbyist: I believe you have valid input to contribute to these forums, but really we don't do the bipartisan/'black and white'/'right and wrong' thing which you have exhibited to date. Everyone is free to have an opinion, everyone may be right, wrong or somewhere in beween at any point but respectful discourse is worth its weight in gold. I (and I know others) would be delighted if you were to re-engage with us later, share your views and input in a more respectful and considered manner and in doing so become a valued part of the community.
User avatar
Eddy Deegan
Moderator
Posts: 4353
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 12:00 am
Location: Brighton & Hove, UK
Some of my works.
Please consider supporting the SOS Forum Album project.
 

Previous